Junglie Merlins
 

Forgive me if this tread has already been discussed - can't find any reference to it. Are the rumours which I am hearing correct stating that if CHF receive Merlins, then they will be marinised (to include folding heads), a process which will cost millions? Interested to hear if anyone has any heads up as to the way ahead. I did hear that the Junglies at one stage were to get CH47?? Apologies if re-tracing a well worn path, but been off line for a while. Thanks, NI

Fishing?
 

fishing in apond where you wont like the taste of the fish is no good to anyone. CAS will want to keep his toys.

Junglie Merlins, by Norfolk Inchance.

Apt.;)

Well what CAS wants, he always gets. Or (b)...

Or not:oh:

I too have been keen to discover an answer to this elusive and hotly debated question. An official reply from the RN to this exact query posed by myself via the MoD stated that the RAF's green Merlins will indeed be coming across to the FAA.

Will this become reality? Who knows(?). If anyone else is more 'in the know' it would be interesting to get some information. The other thread on this topic, of course, descended into an inter-service slagging match and did not answer anything definitively.


(P.S. This is my first post having observed the pprune battles for some time without ever chipping in; I am not press etc......)

Junglie Merlins - confirmed
 

There has been a letter from the PM, in answer to a PMQ session pre Christmas, confirming that the RAF Merlins will indeed be going to CHF and the FAA.

No matter who they end up with, they will need to be marinised in order to meet our required amphibious capability.

I've no doubt this will all change post PR11...

This is a genuine enquiry; not fishing or trying to stir the proverbial. Unaware of the previous thread. Just seems silly to be spending millions converting an aircraft when the money could be better spent on new airframes built to spec, and sell off the old Mk3's. I have even heard a relatively important AW employee/Management saying this.....

Well we had a brief saying that we will more than likely be keeping them, also do you really think CAS will let 24 aircraft be replaced with 12 Chinooks????

Even the CAS has to do as he's told sometimes!

He seemed content for the Nimrod fleet to be replaced by ..........:confused:

In terms of lift and servicability, we could probably replace 24 Merlins with 4 Chinooks, especially when hot and high.

Mandy Rice-Davies reply to that one! Never yet heard an aircraft manufacturer say 'Convert old airframes rather than buy new ones from me' (Well, except maybe BAE's Nimrod salesman!)

Was told today that this would be relatively low-risk compared to say MCSP...

Perhaps I can be of some assistance....(I always keep copies!)

Transcript of letter to Mr Edward Leigh MP dated 21 Dec 2010:

Take care.

Comparison with MCSP is simply not relevant here. MCSP is not High Risk otherwise it would not be happening.....its a prolonged programme due to lack of immediate and sufficient MoD funding. and involves little to do with changing the airframe build..particularly as the Mk1 already has all the foldy bits and in-built anti-corrosion measures...the latter being the key...No the Mk2 MCSP is all about reducing cost of ownership by replacing ancient electronics with those based on interoprable open architecture...a bit of plug and play if you like - but the designer if I met him would "smack" me for saying that!.

The Mk3s will need not only the foldy bits (remember it has a different tail design to the Mk1), and significantly it has no anti-corrosion measures. Sorting them will mean fundamental strip down...not a cheap process...and not neccessarily achievable in all present components.

The addition of the foldy bits will also add weight to what is already a relative poor payload performer. This implies further MAUM extensions which may apparently be made available but will come with greater major component life reduction penalties. It may not be as achievable as wished for given that the Mk3 build will not have some of the essential fuselage component strengthenings as provided in later and new build 101s for operating at the latest MAUMs. The cost of ownership of Merlin 3 is not cheap by any standards...so how does that square with saving cash and making MoD efficient?? It doesn't.

There was indeed an official MoD study a few years ago...and as result both the Merlin IPT, MoD Capability and the JHC know full well that the recommendation from that study was that it was more cost effective to buy new rather than rebuild the Mk3s......yet another procurement cock-up in the offing I fear.

Why is the Mk3 a poor peformer payload-wise, are the engines limited, has it not been cleared to higher weights, or is it just heavy?

How did the RAF manage to De-marinise a marinised airframe in the first place? Surely the things could have been bought as per the HM1 but with a rear ramp and the heavy bits of the tail folding mechanism removed in favour of bolts and some buttstraps.

... A simplistic comment I know but I cant help but think there was a certain degree of "these are our toys so we're going to spec them so the Navy cant use them" mentality going on.

The Mk3 Merlin has a reinforced floor, which adds about a tonne to the AUM.

The essential reason that the Mk3 is different is because it was designed by the Agusta side of the partnership (in the 1980s don't forget) as a basic and cost effective civil utility ac with a ramp, not a multi-capable battlefied helo, never mind one that could operate in all environments.

The Mk1 maritme ASW version on the other hand was designed specifically by Westland for the maritime battle environment to a very comprehensive (and eventually) a very very expensive RN spec. The integral marinisation was a natural consequence of that. (BTW it cost over £4.5Bn to develop and buy those 44 Mk1s!! Where as we spent about £750M on the original 22 Mk3s ..and that sum included about £100M to make them as good as possible at being compatible with the UK SH role rather than a civ Utility ac).

The Mk3 was never intended to go near the salty water when it was bought in 1995...but a few years later the Labour SDR98 created the JHC and also set in train the "go anywhere" policy that lead to all SH potentially being used at sea as well as on land.- even if thew were not marinised. More (UOR) money has now been spent on the Mk3 to make it a more capable SH (which wasn't available in 1995 when we purchased them) for Afghanistan but it still has not (and probably should not) had any cash spent on marinisation.

As to performance, the Mk3 has more powerful engines than the Mk1, but with full role equipment and heavier floor and armour (and despite no foldy bits) it struggles to have a good payload when enough fuel is added too. There has been a heavier take off clearance in recent times but this is by no means without its penalities in terms of cost of ownership..and thats before we consider tail rotor performance. Don't forget that the Mk1 performance was also a compromise against the original ASW spec as the basic design has a poor (for a modern helo design) payload to basic weight ratio. This was one of reasons the programme was almost cancelled in 1990 when the true performance was made apparent after flight testing - the poor ASW mission system performance being the other main issue at the time. The more modern 101 can be a capable and effective choice...but probably only in certain roles where its attributes can be efficiently employed...long range SAR or special ops being some of them

Many believe the Merlin should never have been purchased for SH...and in 1995 every study by MoD showed that the CH47 was always the most cost effective option given its similar price...the then Tory government went against all that advice and bought them anyway.....for every Chinook you need 21/2 Merlin Mk3s to carry the same payload equivalents for an aircraft that isn't much smaller ..although of course the Chinook can always carry much larger volumes and physically large sized loads or very heavy single ones...so which is the better investment, particualry when you consider the costs of running 2 ac types rather than one?

Given that understanding....there was much effort put in to getting any new CH47 purchase marinised so that they could replace some if not all the SK Mk4s in due course...but that proved too expensive and technically riisky with a possible set of folding tandem heads etc, and was binned as an option a while ago. In the absence of any such dedicated "CHF" Chinooks, and the lack of any money under SDSR to replace the Mk4 Sea Kings with a new order for "proper" CHF Merlins---we now face the prospect of the Mk3s being used, swapped or whatever to do the job instead...any port in a storm springs to mind I think....

Cheers :ugh::{

The Merlin Mk3 does show the long-term effects of short-term Deefence thinking. When originally coming into service, the Mk3 was planned to equip 28 Sqn, a flight on 72 Sqn in NI and possibly 84 Sqn in Cyprus. The Mk3 is a compromise in some ways, but it also pays the weight penalty of incorporating 1980s thinking in triplex redundancy. However, it does a brilliant job within the design constraints and has strengths. We could revisit the concept that we should have gone with more Chinooks and the WS-70 Blackhawks, but that is now ancient history.